Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
A theory may be accepted if it adaquately explains the evidence, all the evidence. If the Unbreakable wants me or anyone else with historical acumen to accept his thesis he needs to explain why the Egyptians are often depicted in a way contrary to his biological evidence from the mummies. If he cannot, he must modify his theory to accomodate that evidence, particularly in the context of contact and exchange between Egypt and the Hitties and the people in the Levant.
Hang on. Aren't you getting this the wrong way round? If you claim that the Egyptian artistic depictions are 'realistic', surely it is for you to explain why that perception does not match the physical (genetic and morphological) data. You are the one making the positive claim here, and that claim is that a clearly stylised and symbolic art form is a better representation of the 'reality' of the Egyptian phenotype than the morphological and genetic data, and you demand an explanation as to why the two don't match up? That's without the cultural and religious affinities with the southern sub-sharan populations and political entities being taken into account, an affinity that seems to still be relevant in the timeframe of EB, btw, under the rule of the Greeks and the Romans.

In terms of the differing representations of people within Egyptian art, is it not more likely that such demonstrates that form and symbolism are key to understanding it rather than the suggestion that such changes are down to technical incompetence - given that these artworks are formal works. Do you suggest that Egyptian society was sloppy with regards to its formal representation of itself? For that can surely be the only explanation for so much incompetence to have survived for us.